Depends on how you mean that. I've spent a very long life voting for people I thought might have the best interests of the average citizen in mind, including putting my time and money where my heart is. Rather than voting for and supporting neanderthals and sycophants who offer only fear, poverty and war.

As Americans, we ARE our government, because we live in a country that is run by the people we elect. So all we can do is try to elect leaders who will take OUR needs into account rather than ONLY the needs of big money, big business, big oil and big war. To not do so is to give up. If you give up, you really have no say in the matter, because you have removed yourself from electoral politics. You are trusting to fate.

So, to respond to your statement, I hope I can help, with my vote, to elect the government that we all deserve. That cares about us, as a people. All of us, not just the rich and powerful people.

One mayor (a rich businessman by the way, not a populist) banned buying large soda containers in one city (oh, and you can simply buy a second drink in the now-largest size and make yourself obese and rot your teeth that way). No one is taking away guns. If you actually read the proposals, the only ban would be on the selling of NEW high-capacity magazines and the selling of NEW guns that fit a certain description. No one is coming to your house to get your guns, whether they be hunting animal weapons OR hunting people weapons. Though I must say, if you need a thirty-shot magazine on your assault rifle, and body armor to go with it, you probably aren't going out to shoot whitetail (deer). The rest of your post makes no sense, unless you think that the government is hell-bent on taking over the population and putting us all under its absolute control. Sorta like Red Dawn, hmmm? THEN that body armor and assault rifle would come in handy, wouldn't they? Well, until an Abrams rolled over you or a drone took you out. And if you believe that stuff, then a rational discussion is probably out of the question.

The government is not TAKING AWAY YOUR PHONES. You have to buy them from a privately-held company. You have to pay the fees attached to the purchase. Then you can use the phone. All the Librarian is saying is that if you buy a phone at a subsidized price you need to stay with the carrier you bought it from. Carriers are now (at least AT&T is) unlocking for free at the completion of your plan. If you want your own phone, buy a prepaid one and use that business model.

As to the comment about business models, this is the one we have. If businesses are making money with it, the only way to stop it (other than to vote for populist politicians who will then change our laws to ban campaign financing and the power of lobbyists- you try getting in to see your representative without lots of money for a re-election run in your hand- and who will then create laws and regulations favoring the American people because they are no longer beholden to big business interests) is to vote with your pocketbook and not buy the stuff from these corporations in the first place. I boycott lots of businesses because of the way they treat their customers or employees. So far, to give a couple of examples, Walmart and Whole Foods don't seem to be feeling the pain of my boycott. Maybe because so many other people continue to shop there.

"Mr117, I'm all in favor of businesses being able to make money. But as I addressed earlier, which no one countered, is if I pay for my device outright ($650) why am I still subject to exorbitant fees from AT&T?
You stating it isn't fair to carriers that we only pay $325 to break contract is stupid since that is about the amount they are subsidizing. It also doesn't consider the customer paid $200 to Apple and $36 to carrier already. You also aren't taking into account the fact that after two years of paying a higher rate on a subsidized phone they don't lower your rate - they keep over charging you and there is nothing you can do but go to another carrier.

Again this is why I hope the Walmart method of paying up front becomes more popular but the carriers hate it."

I made no comments about early termination fees. I pay the same fee I've always paid now that my phone is unlocked. (Still with AT&T.) The fees for the iPhone are the same if you buy a locked or unlocked version. Or any other non-iPhone (smartphone) you run on the network of your carrier. All that we are paying "extra" for is a data fee, and I believe all carriers charge that. Activation fees? Don't like them, but, again, part of the cost of a phone. Again, if your don't like the business model, don't use it. I'm not defending it, other than to say that, if you buy something and sign a contract, you are saying that you will honor the contract. See above re how to change things (because posting here surely won't accomplish any changes).

If only more posters here could rub a couple of neurons together and comprehend the responses to their idiotic posts. I mean, I guess their first post is just suffering from a lack of knowledge. However, subsequent posts are definitely idiotic.

Thanks for this review on what is NOT HAPPENING in this country.

As for what is... Yeah... When you sign a contract for something you are agreeing to what's in the contract. If you don't agree, then don't sign the contract. Time to put on your 'big boy pants', kids, get yourself a little education and do a little reading of that cr@p before you sign it. Sheesh.

And if you don't understand it, you have essentially two choices: (a)don't sign it or (b) hire someone to explain it to you [lawyer]. If this is too much to ask, I'm guessing you've never purchased a home. And if you have, maybe you were smart enough to get one of those wonderful subprime mortgages wherein you verified your own income.

Tell you what. Lower the cost on some of these dumb-phones and you can keep it locked. However, if I spend my hard earned money on a two, three, or four hundred dollar phone imma do what ever the f*&k I wanna do with it dipshit!! IMHO

lease |lēs|
noun
a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc., to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment.

Note: "specified time." The implication is that a lease runs out, and the item is returned to the writer of the lease. As in leasing a car. Although you CAN pay a (large) fee and the car does become yours at the end of the lease. A mortgage does not operate in that manner. You pay it off and the house is yours. This is where I think the argument for the carriers falls apart: they don't require you to return the item at the end of the lease, and the phone does become yours. As I said, I'd like to see someone take this to court, as I don't think a fair hearing would result in favor of the carrier.

lease |lēs|
noun
a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc., to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment.

Note: "specified time." The implication is that a lease runs out, and the item is returned to the writer of the lease. As in leasing a car. Although you CAN pay a (large) fee and the car does become yours at the end of the lease. A mortgage does not operate in that manner. You pay it off and the house is yours. This is where I think the argument for the carriers falls apart: they don't require you to return the item at the end of the lease, and the phone does become yours. As I said, I'd like to see someone take this to court, as I don't think a fair hearing would result in favor of the carrier.

I agree with you there. I doubt that it would be upheld in court. The carriers say a lot of stuff that they can't legally do. Just because its on a contract, doesn't mean they are allowed to do that.

I understand the leasing term being used here but technically they say hey if you buy this phone and use OUR service for 2 years instead of paying full price we will discount it. Lets say 6 months down the line I want to unlock my phone because I just want a different one but still keep my service then it's MY phone. And I can sell it if I want. As long as I keep my 2 year contract in tact then it shouldn't matter what I do with MY phone.

Say after six months you want a different phone. You buy (at an unsubsidized price) a new phone and have the service transferred to your new one. Is that what you are saying? Because yes, the old phone is yours, but now you are paying the unsub price for the new one to cover the cost of the old one. So you have the phone (both, actually), and I suppose you could get the old one unlocked and use it with a different carrier. Pricey way to do things.

Say after six months you want a different phone. You buy (at an unsubsidized price) a new phone and have the service transferred to your new one. Is that what you are saying? Because yes, the old phone is yours, but now you are paying the unsub price for the new one to cover the cost of the old one. So you have the phone (both, actually), and I suppose you could get the old one unlocked and use it with a different carrier. Pricey way to do things.

I'll give you a good example. I bought my iPhone 5 (preordered) with a 2 year contract. For argument sake lets say I know (3 months into my 2 year contract) I want to sell my iPhone and buy a samsung galaxy s3 but still keep my 2 year agreement fulfilled. Now according to this new law since the phone isn't mine I can't unlock it and sell it. Back to your car lease analogy if I WANTED to sell the leased car it's ok with the leasing company as long as they get what the car is worth. It's totally doable. But not in the case of my iPhone. That where I see the problem.

Story ays: "In October 2012, the Librarian of Congress, who determines exemptions to a strict anti-hacking law called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), decided that unlocking mobile phones would no longer be allowed. But the librarian provided a 90-day window during which people could still buy a phone and unlock it. That window closes on January 26."

Nothing there about the carrier unlocking it after your plan runs out. A 3rd party unlocker is not the carrier. That's the point of this whole thread.

I think you would need to go to the carrier's store and buy another phone from it. At that point, it might be workable. Or the clerk might just say, too bad, you have to wait until the plan expires.

Keep in mind that I am not FOR the lease idea. I am explaining it. I think it's probably illegal on the face of it. However, if you pays your money, you takes your chances.

Buy an unlocked phone when you purchase it originally and Bob's your uncle. Otherwise, looks like they hold the cards at this point.

I see what you're saying. What I'm curious about Is technically wouldn't this hurt the carriers more than help? I mean you're forcing a lot of people to buy unlocked phones from now on and therefore not guaranteed that you'll stay with them for the next 2 years. So in that sense you'll be losing some people who would otherwise lock in to a 3 year contract.

But you not purchasing it, you are leasing it, you aren't covered by sales laws as it was never sold. You agreed to a contract saying that you will give them x money and in return they will lend you z phone for a indefinite amount of time.

When I purchased any of my phones, nowhere was it stated that I was leasing it. If you paid it full up front, then you have purchased it. If you got one at the subsidized price, then when your contract is up, your device is paid for, and again it is yours.

If it was actually leased (by any definition of the term, legal or otherwise), you'd be obligated to return the product at a certain point in time, such as when leasing a car (you return it at the end of the term.) Furthermore, leasing requires a specific contract that BOTH parties have to be aware of and agree to, and not something you can just quietly hide in a wireless service contract, especially when you consider that the purchase of the device itself is ultimately between you and the maker, regardless of middlemen carriers or vendors. When you buy any iPhone from AT&T, Verizon, etc, it's Apple that's made a sale in the end.

A device such as an iPhone, Android phone, etc, falls into the latter category. Any one who tells you otherwise is ought right deceiving you, plain and simple. Not everyone on high it telling you the truth. No EULA (such as Apple's, Google's, etc) can just magically turn a purchase into a lease, either. Again, that requires a specific agreement. That phone is yours, period. Once it's paid for, it doesn't belong to your carrier/vendor, it doesn't belong to it's maker. It belongs to you alone.

Say after six months you want a different phone. You buy (at an unsubsidized price) a new phone and have the service transferred to your new one. Is that what you are saying? Because yes, the old phone is yours, but now you are paying the unsub price for the new one to cover the cost of the old one.

If you paid full price for the second (newer) phone, then it's fully bought and paid for. You still have the service contract from the time you got the old phone, and thus still paying for that service and remainder of the old device's cost. So even though you can sell the old device, you're still technically paying for it through your service contract (it doesn't matter if you actually poses the device, you're still paying just the same as you would if you had it.) So in the end, you'd be paying for two devices.

This is not retro active, any phone purchased before the 26th can still be unlocked. and any phone purchased after the 26th can not unless it is by your carrier. some carriers like verizon are starting to sell their phone unlocked and have stated so publicly.